0 comment Thursday, September 18, 2014 | admin
Paul Belien at Brussels Journal asks 'Are We All Nazis Now?'
Sadly, I think that, as seen through the distorted lens of the neocons, the answer is 'yes.' All of us who believe in nationalism in any way, shape, or form are 'nazis' or 'fascists' or extremists. Again, we can split hairs over nationalism vs. patriotism, or quibble over whether a nation or a state are the same thing, and we can argue about whether a nation and a people are the same. But neocons care only about the nation as a set of propositions, or a geographical entity, not a nation as a distinct, historic group of people based on kinship and ancestry. Anybody who does care about these things, intrinsic though they are to the traditional understanding of nation, is a nazi.
Belien describes the whole furore over the Vlaams Belang over on a certain 'conservative' forum, and I won't go into detail on that as it has been discussed in minute detail already by others. I think most of us here are familiar with the basics of it. But Belien describes the attitude of one of his American hosts in the context of the current debate:
As Roger Scruton says it needs courage to brave the charges of racism, xenophobia or neo-Nazism in order to speak out. This courage is what Europe lacks.
Unfortunately, some Americans realize that Europe is in for a disaster but seem to think that it is only getting what it deserves. Europe has to be destroyed by the Muslims as a punishment for the Nazis� crimes during WWII. Last year, I was invited to speak about the situation in Europe at one of America�s major universities. For two days my host subjected me to the most terrible accusations. He told me I would have to suffer for what my ancestors had done to his ancestors. "One cannot respect the Europeans," he said. "America should have nuked Europe during WWII instead of Japan. If ever things turn nasty in Europe I will make sure that neither you nor any white European will be allowed to seek shelter in the US. I would rather invite the Muslims in than you and your lot, because one can respect Muslims but not Europeans." Since my host was Jewish and had lost his family in the war I could understand his anger, but not his short-sightedness. I think he did not mean all he said, though it was an upsetting experience and one of the most unpleasant moments in my life.''
[emphasis mine]
I can fully believe that an American would say this kind of thing. I have heard this kind of anti-European self-righteousness from a number of 'conservative' Americans, and I have to say, in all honesty, it disgusts me as much as 'racism' or 'xenophobia' disgust the neocons and their leftist cousins. It should disgust us even more; why? Because it amounts to turning on our own in favor of outsiders, which by my lights is an unnatural thing to do. There is something inverted about taking the side of outsiders (the professor says he would rather have Moslems than Europeans in our country) against one's own. However, to be fair to the professor who made the ugly comments, he obviously does not consider Europeans his kin, and probably not even European-descended Americans. His kinship circle does not include those among whom he lives. And this seems to be true of many neocons. I am reminded of an ugly exchange I had with a neocon 'Texan' who told me that Mexican illegals were better Americans than I am because I was a xenophobe who wanted to exclude people from this country. There are plenty on the so-called right with similar sympathies. To them, their country is just an address with a transient population.
But to return to Belien's post, he describes the dispute over Vlaams Belang, and the reasons for the American neocons' vendetta against it.
Last week almost 80 people from 15 European countries, plus sympathizers from the US, Canada and Israel, convened in the European Parliament in Brussels to discuss a common strategy to fight Islamism. This important and historical event, which shows that there still is a fighting spirit among some Europeans, has been criticized by Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs, an influential American neo-conservative website, because members of the Vlaams Belang were present. Though the VB did not organize the conference, it provided an important part of the logistics and the security of those attending. Johnson says the VB is a neo-Nazi party. His arguments are:
(1) that the party abstained in the European Parliament from approving the above mentioned Holocaust resolution;
(2) that early this month the party organized a "white supremacist" demonstration;
(3) that Nazi skinheads applaud the party;
(4) that neo-Nazis link to VB videos.''
So there we are: guilt by association. This is the kind of thing leftists use; it's their stock-in-trade, when they want to smear somebody. We see the left and the neocons trying to smear Ron Paul for similar reasons: supposedly 'neo-Nazis' and 'racists' have supported him so by association he must be one of them. Might I remind those on the left that the Communist Party almost always endorses the Democrat candidate? In response, Democrats will hastily say that 'the candidate has no control over their choice to endorse him, and besides, the Communists are a pathetically irrelevant party, with few members, and the Right is paranoid about the insignificant Communists.'
We can rightly say the same thing about these right-wing bogeymen the neocons and leftists like to bring up: how many actual 'neo-Nazis' are there in this country, or anywhere in the West? And groups like the SPLC are not a good authority on such matters; periodically they put out their propaganda about a vast 'right-wing extremist' conspiracy out to wreak violence, but there is no evidence in real life of any such threat. A few extremists out there do not a movement make. So why all this hysteria and condemnation over a mostly imaginary 'right-wing extremist' movement? It's just a scare tactic, to keep people within the accepted bounds of political dialogue, which these days is strictly limited, ranging from the far left to the so-called 'right' which represents more the rightward edge of liberalism than it represents anything conservative. The so-called 'right' in America is more often liberalism with a hawkish edge.
On another blog's comments section, I asked, in sincerity, are neocons simply half-converted liberals, or are they Gramscian moles in conservative parties? In some cases, I truly suspect the latter to be true. We know that the Gramscian idea was to infiltrate every institution, including academia, churches, and yes, political parties, and slowly transform them in the left's image, with leftist/liberal values. It looks very much to me like this is what has happened, and is happening.
Now, I am not saying that every person who spouts neocon ideology is a Gramscian leftist; many people have simply been influenced by these ideas which have been let loose in our society, via the media (Fox News, talk radio, 'conservative' punditry, 'right-wing' blogs and forums) and they truly do not realize that what they believe is at odds with what traditional America stood for, or with Western Christian values. They know that their admired political leaders and pastors and talk-radio personalities and neighbors and fellow country-club members believe the same things, and people tend to absorb the ideas of those they identify with.
So without even realizing it, many people inadvertently absorbed many liberal values and presuppositions because these ideas permeate our national atmosphere. They don't realize how liberal those ideas are.
On the Brussels Journal thread, a commenter named darrinh says the following:
It is remarkable how neo-cons go into throes of self-flagellation whenever nationalism is mentioned. Both LGF and TimBlair.net do this. By using the same catch-cries of the left, all they are doing really is assisting the Islamic propaganda machine and ultimately, despite their best intentions, will fail in the struggle against an enemy who does not care for such niceties.
The road to hell was indeed paved by good intentions and is maintained by the reasonable man. I do not intend to be that reasonable man.''
Amen.
The commenter above also mentions an important point: this division and competing for PC purity among Westerners is weakening us.
I would like to ask the 'conservatives' who are so holier-than-thou with anything they deem to be 'extremist', do you honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe that there is a resurgent 'nazism' waiting to happen in Europe or in America? Why? Do you believe, with most leftists, that people of European descent have some kind of gene for 'hatred' or 'fascism', some kind of atavistic Berserker gene which will cause them to revert to a barbaric past and start some kind of violent purge of foreigners in the West? If you believe that, isn't that a 'racist' attitude towards Europeans? I say it is, and since liberals and neocons have established that we can arbitrarily call anything 'racist', with or without proof, I say it's racist to accuse European-descended people of innate 'fascism.' And some have come quite close to doing that, notably some like the neocon hawk Ralph Peters, who bizarrely vacillates between fulminating against Islam and all its works and all its pomps, and fulminating against the 'Islamophobes', especially those in Europe, who are just itching to take up the sword against Islam again.
On one of the blogs where this whole furor is being discussed, an angry commenter defends the counterjihadist blogger who is at the center of it, saying that he does a great service by telling Americans and others of the 'horrors of Islam.' Now, I am always baffled by the many Americans who will zealously and angrily defend their favorite personalities, whether a pundit, a blogger, or a talk radio host -- or a President. If only we in the West had this kind of loyalty and zeal for our people and our civilization as we display for a personality or a political party or a president, then we would assuredly not be in this terrible predicament vis-a-vis Islam or immigrant invasions. I think this, too, is one of the unhappy fruits of the inroads of leftism: since allegiance to our people is now in disrepute, and since loyalty to kin and nation has been declared tantamount to Nazism, then the natural, normal, healthy, wholesome, good tendency to fight for one's own has been re-channeled, diverted into unnatural 'us-vs.-them' factions, such as political party and personality cults, cults of political figures and vacuous celebrities and false religious leaders. This is all a perversion of natural human tendency to ally with a group.
There is just something pathetic about being fighting mad over words, over someone 'dissing' your favorite blogger or favorite talk radio pundit or your political party. It's pathetic because it is an unnatural thing.
Over on Free Republic, when people post news stories, they are allowed to alter or add to headlines and make 'editorializing' comments thereby. The other day, a news story announced 'scientist predicts humans to split into two branches'. The poster had added: 'Conservatives and liberals?' What an illustrative question. To the people who frequent Free Republic, the most important division among human beings is 'conservative vs. liberal.' Truly. Or more accurately, 'Republican vs. Democrat.' There are people there who defend illegal immigrants, some doing so quite angrily and forcibly. Some will defend 'moderate Muslims' but Democrats and liberals are the root of all evil in the world. I can sympathize somewhat, because liberals and leftists have wrought considerable destruction to our world and our way of life. Though liberals disclaim violence as a tactic, there is more than one kind of violence, and their effort to dismantle and pull down our traditonal societies has caused a great deal of destruction and yes, even loss of life. But there is always the possibility that a liberal might become more conservative, or have a complete change of heart. It has happened. Whereas some people are congenitally our enemies, and will never be really on our side.
So here is where I part company, vehemently, with neocons. They really, honestly, seem to think that their fellow countrymen or Westerners who are more right wing than they are (and that could include a lot of people) are a more serious danger than Islam at its worst. They would rather risk terror attacks by Moslems in our countries than to be 'Islamophobic' enough to ban Moslem immigration or deport anyone. To me, this is proof positive that their thinking is deranged. Should another terror attack happen (as our blithely feckless government assures us it will), it will be partly on the head of the neocons who are too squeamish or too holier-than-thou to expel anyone. They would rather die and see other Westerners die than deport -- because that would be 'extremist', you see. In that respect, how are they one whit different from the leftists? How?
And as for the counterjihad bloggers who are praised by their followers for doing such great service, I have mixed feelings. I used to be a regular visitor to some of those blogs and forums, and I did learn from what I read there -- but on the other hand, 9/11 taught me all I needed to know about Islam. Actually, I had an inkling before that terrible day. Way back in 1972, after the terror attacks at the Munich Olympics, I wrote about the violent fruits of Islam. So I knew the score on Islam back then, but little did I notice, in the intervening decades, how many Moslems were quietly slipping into our country and setting up shop here. I think few of us realized there was a conscious policy of colonizing, and establishing their presence and power by degrees in Western countries.
The counterjihad blogs and forums do a good service -- but if those who run them stop short of recommending deportation or exclusion, what then? After they have spent years warning everyone about the dangerous designs of Islam on the West, about the violent admonitions of the Koran and the Hadiths, after years (it's more than six years since 9/11, after all!) of recounting many horror stories, what now? After years of telling us of honor killings, beheadings, rapes, bombings, terror threats, random attacks in our country and elsewhere, reports of cruel punishments in Islamic lands, slavery, repression, persecution, desecrations of churches, what now? What's our move, if not deportations, or at the very minimum, stopping all Moslem immigration? What is the point of all the hand-wringing, the warning, the lamenting, if there is nothing we can do about it except to wage an endless, expensive war 'over there, so we don't have to fight them over here?'
And why are some of the most ardent supporters of the 'War on Terror' and of the war in Iraq the most vehement opponents of deporting or excluding Moslems? Does that make sense? It's 'mean' and hateful to deport or exclude, but sending an army into their countries is just dandy?
What is the solution to the Islamic problem? What do the neocons who think deportation is racist propose we do then? Do they think we can convert them? Kill them with kindness? Intermarry with them? Convert en masse? Pay jizya to make them stop killing us? Accommodate to them? Or do they believe we can reform Islam? Make them 'enter the 21st century' as some optimists say we must do? How do we do that?
If the counterjihad blogs and forums are nothing more than places to vent or tsk-tsk about the latest atrocity in some far-off corner of Araby, then what good is that? Is it just a way to defuse and channel some of the anti-Islamic fears and frustrations?
It appears to me that some of these forums are essentially just a debating society or a way to defuse some of the fear or anger. If there is no solution, if we categorically rule out the most obvious solution, why even bother to spend so much of one's life thinking about the problem and talking about it?
Those on the left will continue to denounce anyone who holds the forbidden 'nationalist' views, because that is what they do. But how can a conservative believe that nationalism and the desire to protect and preserve one's country and culture is evil and wrong? It seems we are seeing who is truly conservative and who is not.
And as far as the irrelevant idea of some of the European parties having been associated with Nazism or collaborationists -- excuse me. That was more than six decades ago. Most of the people alive and active in that era of history are now long since dead. Why is anyone trying to keep that dead past alive? And before someone invokes the Holocaust, I have to say the same as I would say about slavery: what does that have to do with today's generation? The Moslems are the main enemies of Jews today; why pretend that Europeans are a threat? And why dredge up history as a weapon to use against people of today who had no part in the events of six or more decades ago? I suppose my patience is wearing thin for those whose main identity has to do with victimhood. The guilt industry and the concomitant victim industry are the main factors in the inability of the West to claim the natural right to self-defense, and the God-given right to exist.
Sadly, I think that, as seen through the distorted lens of the neocons, the answer is 'yes.' All of us who believe in nationalism in any way, shape, or form are 'nazis' or 'fascists' or extremists. Again, we can split hairs over nationalism vs. patriotism, or quibble over whether a nation or a state are the same thing, and we can argue about whether a nation and a people are the same. But neocons care only about the nation as a set of propositions, or a geographical entity, not a nation as a distinct, historic group of people based on kinship and ancestry. Anybody who does care about these things, intrinsic though they are to the traditional understanding of nation, is a nazi.
Belien describes the whole furore over the Vlaams Belang over on a certain 'conservative' forum, and I won't go into detail on that as it has been discussed in minute detail already by others. I think most of us here are familiar with the basics of it. But Belien describes the attitude of one of his American hosts in the context of the current debate:
As Roger Scruton says it needs courage to brave the charges of racism, xenophobia or neo-Nazism in order to speak out. This courage is what Europe lacks.
Unfortunately, some Americans realize that Europe is in for a disaster but seem to think that it is only getting what it deserves. Europe has to be destroyed by the Muslims as a punishment for the Nazis� crimes during WWII. Last year, I was invited to speak about the situation in Europe at one of America�s major universities. For two days my host subjected me to the most terrible accusations. He told me I would have to suffer for what my ancestors had done to his ancestors. "One cannot respect the Europeans," he said. "America should have nuked Europe during WWII instead of Japan. If ever things turn nasty in Europe I will make sure that neither you nor any white European will be allowed to seek shelter in the US. I would rather invite the Muslims in than you and your lot, because one can respect Muslims but not Europeans." Since my host was Jewish and had lost his family in the war I could understand his anger, but not his short-sightedness. I think he did not mean all he said, though it was an upsetting experience and one of the most unpleasant moments in my life.''
[emphasis mine]
I can fully believe that an American would say this kind of thing. I have heard this kind of anti-European self-righteousness from a number of 'conservative' Americans, and I have to say, in all honesty, it disgusts me as much as 'racism' or 'xenophobia' disgust the neocons and their leftist cousins. It should disgust us even more; why? Because it amounts to turning on our own in favor of outsiders, which by my lights is an unnatural thing to do. There is something inverted about taking the side of outsiders (the professor says he would rather have Moslems than Europeans in our country) against one's own. However, to be fair to the professor who made the ugly comments, he obviously does not consider Europeans his kin, and probably not even European-descended Americans. His kinship circle does not include those among whom he lives. And this seems to be true of many neocons. I am reminded of an ugly exchange I had with a neocon 'Texan' who told me that Mexican illegals were better Americans than I am because I was a xenophobe who wanted to exclude people from this country. There are plenty on the so-called right with similar sympathies. To them, their country is just an address with a transient population.
But to return to Belien's post, he describes the dispute over Vlaams Belang, and the reasons for the American neocons' vendetta against it.
Last week almost 80 people from 15 European countries, plus sympathizers from the US, Canada and Israel, convened in the European Parliament in Brussels to discuss a common strategy to fight Islamism. This important and historical event, which shows that there still is a fighting spirit among some Europeans, has been criticized by Charles Johnson, the owner of Little Green Footballs, an influential American neo-conservative website, because members of the Vlaams Belang were present. Though the VB did not organize the conference, it provided an important part of the logistics and the security of those attending. Johnson says the VB is a neo-Nazi party. His arguments are:
(1) that the party abstained in the European Parliament from approving the above mentioned Holocaust resolution;
(2) that early this month the party organized a "white supremacist" demonstration;
(3) that Nazi skinheads applaud the party;
(4) that neo-Nazis link to VB videos.''
So there we are: guilt by association. This is the kind of thing leftists use; it's their stock-in-trade, when they want to smear somebody. We see the left and the neocons trying to smear Ron Paul for similar reasons: supposedly 'neo-Nazis' and 'racists' have supported him so by association he must be one of them. Might I remind those on the left that the Communist Party almost always endorses the Democrat candidate? In response, Democrats will hastily say that 'the candidate has no control over their choice to endorse him, and besides, the Communists are a pathetically irrelevant party, with few members, and the Right is paranoid about the insignificant Communists.'
We can rightly say the same thing about these right-wing bogeymen the neocons and leftists like to bring up: how many actual 'neo-Nazis' are there in this country, or anywhere in the West? And groups like the SPLC are not a good authority on such matters; periodically they put out their propaganda about a vast 'right-wing extremist' conspiracy out to wreak violence, but there is no evidence in real life of any such threat. A few extremists out there do not a movement make. So why all this hysteria and condemnation over a mostly imaginary 'right-wing extremist' movement? It's just a scare tactic, to keep people within the accepted bounds of political dialogue, which these days is strictly limited, ranging from the far left to the so-called 'right' which represents more the rightward edge of liberalism than it represents anything conservative. The so-called 'right' in America is more often liberalism with a hawkish edge.
On another blog's comments section, I asked, in sincerity, are neocons simply half-converted liberals, or are they Gramscian moles in conservative parties? In some cases, I truly suspect the latter to be true. We know that the Gramscian idea was to infiltrate every institution, including academia, churches, and yes, political parties, and slowly transform them in the left's image, with leftist/liberal values. It looks very much to me like this is what has happened, and is happening.
Now, I am not saying that every person who spouts neocon ideology is a Gramscian leftist; many people have simply been influenced by these ideas which have been let loose in our society, via the media (Fox News, talk radio, 'conservative' punditry, 'right-wing' blogs and forums) and they truly do not realize that what they believe is at odds with what traditional America stood for, or with Western Christian values. They know that their admired political leaders and pastors and talk-radio personalities and neighbors and fellow country-club members believe the same things, and people tend to absorb the ideas of those they identify with.
So without even realizing it, many people inadvertently absorbed many liberal values and presuppositions because these ideas permeate our national atmosphere. They don't realize how liberal those ideas are.
On the Brussels Journal thread, a commenter named darrinh says the following:
It is remarkable how neo-cons go into throes of self-flagellation whenever nationalism is mentioned. Both LGF and TimBlair.net do this. By using the same catch-cries of the left, all they are doing really is assisting the Islamic propaganda machine and ultimately, despite their best intentions, will fail in the struggle against an enemy who does not care for such niceties.
The road to hell was indeed paved by good intentions and is maintained by the reasonable man. I do not intend to be that reasonable man.''
Amen.
The commenter above also mentions an important point: this division and competing for PC purity among Westerners is weakening us.
I would like to ask the 'conservatives' who are so holier-than-thou with anything they deem to be 'extremist', do you honestly, in your heart-of-hearts, believe that there is a resurgent 'nazism' waiting to happen in Europe or in America? Why? Do you believe, with most leftists, that people of European descent have some kind of gene for 'hatred' or 'fascism', some kind of atavistic Berserker gene which will cause them to revert to a barbaric past and start some kind of violent purge of foreigners in the West? If you believe that, isn't that a 'racist' attitude towards Europeans? I say it is, and since liberals and neocons have established that we can arbitrarily call anything 'racist', with or without proof, I say it's racist to accuse European-descended people of innate 'fascism.' And some have come quite close to doing that, notably some like the neocon hawk Ralph Peters, who bizarrely vacillates between fulminating against Islam and all its works and all its pomps, and fulminating against the 'Islamophobes', especially those in Europe, who are just itching to take up the sword against Islam again.
On one of the blogs where this whole furor is being discussed, an angry commenter defends the counterjihadist blogger who is at the center of it, saying that he does a great service by telling Americans and others of the 'horrors of Islam.' Now, I am always baffled by the many Americans who will zealously and angrily defend their favorite personalities, whether a pundit, a blogger, or a talk radio host -- or a President. If only we in the West had this kind of loyalty and zeal for our people and our civilization as we display for a personality or a political party or a president, then we would assuredly not be in this terrible predicament vis-a-vis Islam or immigrant invasions. I think this, too, is one of the unhappy fruits of the inroads of leftism: since allegiance to our people is now in disrepute, and since loyalty to kin and nation has been declared tantamount to Nazism, then the natural, normal, healthy, wholesome, good tendency to fight for one's own has been re-channeled, diverted into unnatural 'us-vs.-them' factions, such as political party and personality cults, cults of political figures and vacuous celebrities and false religious leaders. This is all a perversion of natural human tendency to ally with a group.
There is just something pathetic about being fighting mad over words, over someone 'dissing' your favorite blogger or favorite talk radio pundit or your political party. It's pathetic because it is an unnatural thing.
Over on Free Republic, when people post news stories, they are allowed to alter or add to headlines and make 'editorializing' comments thereby. The other day, a news story announced 'scientist predicts humans to split into two branches'. The poster had added: 'Conservatives and liberals?' What an illustrative question. To the people who frequent Free Republic, the most important division among human beings is 'conservative vs. liberal.' Truly. Or more accurately, 'Republican vs. Democrat.' There are people there who defend illegal immigrants, some doing so quite angrily and forcibly. Some will defend 'moderate Muslims' but Democrats and liberals are the root of all evil in the world. I can sympathize somewhat, because liberals and leftists have wrought considerable destruction to our world and our way of life. Though liberals disclaim violence as a tactic, there is more than one kind of violence, and their effort to dismantle and pull down our traditonal societies has caused a great deal of destruction and yes, even loss of life. But there is always the possibility that a liberal might become more conservative, or have a complete change of heart. It has happened. Whereas some people are congenitally our enemies, and will never be really on our side.
So here is where I part company, vehemently, with neocons. They really, honestly, seem to think that their fellow countrymen or Westerners who are more right wing than they are (and that could include a lot of people) are a more serious danger than Islam at its worst. They would rather risk terror attacks by Moslems in our countries than to be 'Islamophobic' enough to ban Moslem immigration or deport anyone. To me, this is proof positive that their thinking is deranged. Should another terror attack happen (as our blithely feckless government assures us it will), it will be partly on the head of the neocons who are too squeamish or too holier-than-thou to expel anyone. They would rather die and see other Westerners die than deport -- because that would be 'extremist', you see. In that respect, how are they one whit different from the leftists? How?
And as for the counterjihad bloggers who are praised by their followers for doing such great service, I have mixed feelings. I used to be a regular visitor to some of those blogs and forums, and I did learn from what I read there -- but on the other hand, 9/11 taught me all I needed to know about Islam. Actually, I had an inkling before that terrible day. Way back in 1972, after the terror attacks at the Munich Olympics, I wrote about the violent fruits of Islam. So I knew the score on Islam back then, but little did I notice, in the intervening decades, how many Moslems were quietly slipping into our country and setting up shop here. I think few of us realized there was a conscious policy of colonizing, and establishing their presence and power by degrees in Western countries.
The counterjihad blogs and forums do a good service -- but if those who run them stop short of recommending deportation or exclusion, what then? After they have spent years warning everyone about the dangerous designs of Islam on the West, about the violent admonitions of the Koran and the Hadiths, after years (it's more than six years since 9/11, after all!) of recounting many horror stories, what now? After years of telling us of honor killings, beheadings, rapes, bombings, terror threats, random attacks in our country and elsewhere, reports of cruel punishments in Islamic lands, slavery, repression, persecution, desecrations of churches, what now? What's our move, if not deportations, or at the very minimum, stopping all Moslem immigration? What is the point of all the hand-wringing, the warning, the lamenting, if there is nothing we can do about it except to wage an endless, expensive war 'over there, so we don't have to fight them over here?'
And why are some of the most ardent supporters of the 'War on Terror' and of the war in Iraq the most vehement opponents of deporting or excluding Moslems? Does that make sense? It's 'mean' and hateful to deport or exclude, but sending an army into their countries is just dandy?
What is the solution to the Islamic problem? What do the neocons who think deportation is racist propose we do then? Do they think we can convert them? Kill them with kindness? Intermarry with them? Convert en masse? Pay jizya to make them stop killing us? Accommodate to them? Or do they believe we can reform Islam? Make them 'enter the 21st century' as some optimists say we must do? How do we do that?
If the counterjihad blogs and forums are nothing more than places to vent or tsk-tsk about the latest atrocity in some far-off corner of Araby, then what good is that? Is it just a way to defuse and channel some of the anti-Islamic fears and frustrations?
It appears to me that some of these forums are essentially just a debating society or a way to defuse some of the fear or anger. If there is no solution, if we categorically rule out the most obvious solution, why even bother to spend so much of one's life thinking about the problem and talking about it?
Those on the left will continue to denounce anyone who holds the forbidden 'nationalist' views, because that is what they do. But how can a conservative believe that nationalism and the desire to protect and preserve one's country and culture is evil and wrong? It seems we are seeing who is truly conservative and who is not.
And as far as the irrelevant idea of some of the European parties having been associated with Nazism or collaborationists -- excuse me. That was more than six decades ago. Most of the people alive and active in that era of history are now long since dead. Why is anyone trying to keep that dead past alive? And before someone invokes the Holocaust, I have to say the same as I would say about slavery: what does that have to do with today's generation? The Moslems are the main enemies of Jews today; why pretend that Europeans are a threat? And why dredge up history as a weapon to use against people of today who had no part in the events of six or more decades ago? I suppose my patience is wearing thin for those whose main identity has to do with victimhood. The guilt industry and the concomitant victim industry are the main factors in the inability of the West to claim the natural right to self-defense, and the God-given right to exist.
Labels: Deportation, Europe, Extremism, Jihad, Nationalism, Political Correctness, Repatriation, Vlaams Belang